I personally run 850psi to my MicroEmags and Xmag from a 68/45k and 1100psi to my Micromags from the same size/pressure tank... I've been trying to track my efficiency and have found some interested trends between setups.

About a 1000 rounds with my egomag and almost 1200 with my
EP classic valve. I use crossfire tank regs at 850-900. The valves have modified on off assemblies but would most likely detract from efficiency.

What most people don't understand is that the way a level 10 bolt is tuned will
Drastically effect the efficiency. I won't explain why as not to make people go cross eyed. Just trust me.

About a 1000 rounds with my egomag and almost 1200 with my
EP classic valve. I use crossfire tank regs at 850-900. The valves have modified on off assemblies but would most likely detract from efficiency.

What most people don't understand is that the way a level 10 bolt is tuned will
Drastically effect the efficiency. I won't explain why as not to make people go cross eyed. Just trust me.

Without going into to much detail, could you explain what setup would be more efficient and what would be less?

Without going into to much detail, could you explain what setup would be more efficient and what would be less?

I would say the classic mag would be the most efficient. Then the x/rt valves at normal input pressure with a L7 bolt. Then they get less efficient as you add pressure to induce the RT effect and worse with a L10 bolt. Even worse if it a EP with L10.

The most you will loose with a EP mag with a x-valve and L10 bolt is about 10%+- vs a stock classic mag.

Ya because air is so easy to measure the weight of. Lol. and C02 is a no go for to many reasons. You know what they say, on the Internet you have to type to prove your are stupid so it requires real effort.

If you don't see a use for this don't bother to post. The reason to get possibly 20% more shots to a tank is obvious. And the only test anyone respects is done with a full 68/45, but most in the online paintball community know this.

But the problem is that with 13/3k... nobody cares. The whole point of this particular thread is to figure out what air efficiency people are ACTUALLY getting. Alot of numbers get thrown around about the efficiency of mags. OP is trying to find a real life number of what he would get out of a 68/45. Not a theoretical mathematically likely number, that is probably off in one way or another. Weighing the tank I think is relatively pointless. As long as you use the same compressor for pre-mod and post-mod testing, you will get much more close to real-life differences. Let's face it, I could care less if I get a 20% increase "in the lab" if I don't see similar results on the field.

The point of the 13/3k is to get the overall gun weight down so as to not blow out the top range of a typical scale.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biscuit451

The whole point of this particular thread is to figure out what air efficiency people are ACTUALLY getting. Alot of numbers get thrown around about the efficiency of mags. OP is trying to find a real life number of what he would get out of a 68/45.

And you will not get accurate, empirical numbers for that because almost nobody performs that test, because it requires 1500 paintballs and a full 4500 fill.

And it's because the test is excessive to the point of people not performing it. It seems that entire point was lost on you.

What you will get instead is people trying to ballpark it by remembering what happened at the field. And sometimes not even that.

Case in point: have you literally performed the test yourself? If so, where's the proof? If not, why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biscuit451

Not a theoretical mathematically likely number, that is probably off in one way or another. Weighing the tank I think is relatively pointless.

Do you think weighing a CO2 tank is pointless?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biscuit451

As long as you use the same compressor for pre-mod and post-mod testing, you will get much more close to real-life differences. Let's face it, I could care less if I get a 20% increase "in the lab" if I don't see similar results on the field.

The point of the 13/3k is to get the overall gun weight down so as to not blow out the top range of a typical scale.

fair enough

And you will not get accurate, empirical numbers for that because almost nobody performs that test, because it requires 1500 paintballs and a full 4500 fill.

And it's because the test is excessive to the point of people not performing it. It seems that entire point was lost on you.

What you will get instead is people trying to ballpark it by remembering what happened at the field. And sometimes not even that.

Case in point: have you literally performed the test yourself? If so, where's the proof? If not, why not?

While I personally haven't sat in a chrono and blasted through paint, I also am not going to go buy a 13 ci tank just to test efficiencies. I am appreciative of people who do perform efficiency tests by sitting down and blasting out a case of paint. I also am fine with rough figures of how many pods people can drop off a fill. I personally look to see if I can pull atleast 1000 shots(7 pods), any more is super convenient. Rough numbers are typically close enough.

Do you think weighing a CO2 tank is pointless?

No, they don't have gauges, or other ways to measure the amount of propellant contained whilst filling.

Who said anything about mods?Hill made a comment about increasing efficiency by 20%. He designed a valve insert mod that increases efficiency by 20%.

If I gave you 1000 paintballs and asked you to calculate the average weight of a paintball, would you take each one out and weigh it and calculate the average, or would you throw them all on a scale and divide by 1000?

If I gave you a large bag with an unknown amount of paintballs in it and asked you to find out how many balls were in it, would you literally take each one out and count them up, or would you throw them all on the scale and divide by the average weight of a paintball?

Yet if I hand you a tank and ask you how many shots it has, the only way to find that is to actually fire all 1000+ shots out of it?

Really?

Here’s an old post on AO for those of you who still don’t believe air can be weighed. There was also another famous one here on PBN about “weight of air” but the mods nuked the most hilarious bits of it, probably to protect the ignor... er, I mean innocent.

The last time I did this was with CO2, and I seemed to get about 0.35g expended per shot with a classic. I’m planning on redoing that test with both HPA and CO2, but let’s just play with the numbers and pretend that HPA has similar consumption and compare against the old rules of thumb.

We’ll need the weight of the air in a full tank, and the weight of air at the cutoff, which I’m going to put around 600PSI.

68ci @ 4500 PSI = 439.7g of air
68ci @ 600 PSI = 58.6g of air

381.1g / 0.35 = 1088 shots

Compare to the classic rule of 15 shots per ci @ 4500 PSI:

68 * 15 = 1020 shots

Let’s try again for a 13ci tank.

13ci @ 3000 PSI = 56.3g of air
13ci @ 600 PSI = 11.3g of air

45g / 0.35 = 128 shots

Compare to the classic rule of 10 shots per ci @ 3000 PSI:

13 * 10 = 130 shots

If someone educated* wants to explain why simply weighing the air and dividing it by an average amount of air consumed per shot is going to be less accurate then “uhm I think I shot maybe 7 pods, but the fill station wasn’t filling all the way up to 4500 so I’m not sure”, I’m all ears. These numbers are for STP, so I haven’t calculated what kind of variance different ambient conditions will cause. But I’m guessing it will still be a better ballpark than what we’ve seen so far.

Again, notice that only one other person can demonstrably claim anything close to a number.

But once again all of that is theory. Scientifically it all makes sense. I'm not at all arguing with the logic or physics of it. I'm simply stating that, in the real world, how often do you land at perfect circumstances? I geuss my point is that I understand this thread to be "what efficiency do you get when playing paintball with an x-valve?" I don't want to assume the round chicken, I want to see how many eggs the chicken actually lays, even if that isn't perfect.

if i had the capability to weigh the tank and marker and fir a single shot and measure the again it would have been done. but i have no means of doing that especially at the field which is probably why the other way is done. not to say that your way is wrong but the majority of the people can't do what you said.

But once again all of that is theory. Scientifically it all makes sense. I'm not at all arguing with the logic or physics of it. I'm simply stating that, in the real world, how often do you land at perfect circumstances? I geuss my point is that I understand this thread to be "what efficiency do you get when playing paintball with an x-valve?" I don't want to assume the round chicken, I want to see how many eggs the chicken actually lays, even if that isn't perfect.

This is the second time you have contradicted yourself in the same post. You did the same thing in the previous one as well.

You claim that the "theory" is not valid because it assumes "perfect" circumstances, but then close by saying you're willing to accept results which aren't "perfect".

I mean, you literally used the same word in both contradicting sentences -- "perfect". Let me line them up right next to each other so you can see:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biscuit451

I'm simply stating that, in the real world, how often do you land at perfect circumstances?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Biscuit451

I don't want to assume the round chicken, I want to see how many eggs the chicken actually lays, even if that isn't perfect.

So which is it?

In the real world, how do we, as grown, educated adults, go from theory to reality?

I think you misread those two quotes. The way I intended them, and they still read, I say that I want to see what happens in the real world, even if it happens to be imperfect.

let me reword it

I'm simply stating that, in the real world, how often do you land at perfect circumstances?
Here I am saying, "the real world does not work out perfectly. Thus, scientific computations scaled up from a small tank will likely be off of what I experience full scale while actually playing."I don't want to assume the round chicken, I want to see how many eggs the chicken actually lays, even if that isn't perfect.
Here I am saying, "I don't want to look at the physics and what should happen, but observe what actually happens, even if what actually happens could be a bad test with variance based upon uncontrollable factors.

Really, if you wanted to tear apart my argument, you would point out that I don't trust the variance of your test, but am fine with the likely-larger variances of my real-world tests. But the biggest problem with your test still stands. I don't have a 13/3000 tank, and I wouldn't have any basis to compare those results against, unless you did the math back to 68/45 for me. Even then I would still be hesitant about the math. In the end, it would be cheaper for me to buy a case of paint than to buy a tank anyhow. I also think that a chrono might be more necessary with a 13/3000 to ensure accurate results and know when to stop(not sure on that, but if true, that'd be another chunk of change.) Regardless, I don't really feel like debating this any longer, so I'm going to try and not post on this anymore.

Interesting takes all around. I will say c02 is not an option because both AIR and RT valves don't tend to like it until it's been through a regulator that's up to the task. I won't deny that there is merit to be found in all sorts of different efficiency testing, but there are limits to your facilities and equipment on hand.

I'm looking for more rough, field use efficiency - i.e. how many 140rd pods do you tend to shoot before hitting that unusable bottom of the tank, etc. No need to bolt onto the shooting bench just yet, I'm just looking for as many rough estimates as possible and a description of the setup of the marker.

I've been messing around with a Spydermag using a L7 X-valve with ULT, uncut "FN" spring, Virtue board with eyes, and a Ninja 68/45 putting out about 750psi - I've found I can get 1500+ "good" shots from a 4k fill. I haven't started messing with the settings yet, but I'm sure I can squeeze another 100/200 shots out of there. I'm currently using a 12" Scepter kit with a .679 insert and a custom brass single spiral vented tip, shooting Marballizer that comes in at an average of .678 OD.

"Scientific method." The constant enemy of paintball since its inception, and the reason why threads like this still exist even though the RT has been out for 16 years.

Test procedure edited to include chronograph. It was implicit in the original Step 6 (now step 7), but you know what they say about fool-proofing things.

Agreed. I've done my own accuracy and efficiency testing in the past on a small scale and as far as I know I'm the only one to include and factor thermometer and hygrometer readings (unlike some You-Tube whoring divas who think minor internet fame can replace facts). I've found that there can be pronounced effects on efficiency in extremely hot or cold environments, and in high humidity.

Also, to be fair, the RT has existed for 16 years, but there have been plenty of developments since then that have changed the performance of the valve - stainless steel and aluminum valves perform differently due to temperature (as do the thinner Classic R/T valves), and a different on/off assembly can have a great effect on efficiency (there are many more options now than there were a decade ago). When you factor the different fine-tuning options with the bolt and on/off, and the development of new firing methods (Emag frames and pneumatic setups) which allow for different setups, there is a lot of room for variance. Never mind varied tank output. Automags, being so modular (unlike many other high-end markers), are rarely seen in the same setup on the same field .

Anyway, I didn't mean to inspire a brawl, I was more interested in hearing what frame/body/rail combinations people were using on the field, what if any unique setups were being used in the valve. That, and a rough estimate of efficiency overall. This new setup I've got is the only X-Valve'd marker I've managed to get above 1100 usable shots, and believe me there are quite a few others in my flock.

my current main automag is using an xvalve with ULT, level 10 tuned for the gentlest touch on paint, powered by a ninja tank putting out 800-850. I was chronographed at 291 on my first shot.

last weekend it was mid/upper 60s and not especially humid. On a 68 that was filled to around 4200 psi after cooling off, I got 970-982 usable shots. I used 982, but I did this test in a game situation and I sometimes have quick, sloppy reloads. My last shot after I walked off the field was chronographed at 204 fps.

I had already planned to test how tuning a level 10 kit for efficiency vs. gentleness on paint can affect efficiency, so I'll just post the numbers here as I get them. My testing is all done in game situation and not at all scientific with plenty of room for error, but ballpark numbers are better than no numbers (which i think was biscuit's point).

I like goatboy's testing method, unfortunately I do not have the equipment to do that. I do have the equipment necessary to go play paintball and just shoot a whole bunch of paint and record the numbers.